Wikipedia

Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 22

< Talk:Srebrenica massacre
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Coldtrack in topic Error regarding serbian cyrillic
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

Kravica sponaneously

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This part seems problematic:

The mass murder in Kravica seemed unplanned and seems to have started spontaneously when one of the warehouse doors suddenly swung open, according to trial testimony.

The reference given was a reuse of the name "un.org" which have had multiple declarations in the past. Now "un.org" has a single declaration and lots of incorrect re-uses. I could with a reasonably degree of certainty figure out what reference was actually supposed to have been used, however it ended up looking like original research. The Krstic Judgement notes that "The paucity of evidence implicating the Drina Corps in the commission of the mass executions on 13 July stands in contrast to the substantial evidence implicating the Drina Corps in the commission of the mass executions from 14 July onwards as discussed infra", and a survivor states "all of a sudden there was a lot of shooting in the warehouse". A better source is needed, if it exists. Uglemat (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Confusion about Republika Srpska Commission on Srebrenica

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There seems to be much confusion surrounding the "Second RS Report". There seems to be two related groups here, first the "Commission for the research of events in and around Srebrenica in 10 – 19 July 1995" ("Srebrenica Commission", or "Commission for Srebrenica") which issued two reports, one on 11 June, another one on 15 October 2004. Confusingly, both have been referred to as the "final report" in sources I've seen. There is also a second group, the "Working group for the enforcement of conclusions arising from Final Report of the Srebrenica Commission"[1].

Then there is the issue of the 892 names. The Amnesty Source cited[2] says

At the end of March 2005 the RS authorities subsequently forwarded a list of some 892 persons suspected of involvement in Srebrenica to the State Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina; the list included many still employed by the RS government.

Most sources seem to agree however, like Čekić wrote in the first source I've given, that:

[The Working Group] established the number of persons who were, in March 2005, on leading positions within the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, entities, and municipalities (SIPA, OSA, DGS, Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of Defense, the Republika Srpska Ministry of Defense, the Republika Srpska Ministry of Interior, Judicial police, Misdemeanor courts, municipalities, etc.), who took part in the events in and around Srebrenica in 10 – 19 July 1995. The number is 892 persons.

It seems the Amnesty source is wrong, and therefore the wikipedia article as of now.

Uglemat (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This book, chapter 7, seems to clear things up. The October report apparently is an addendum to the "final report" of June 2004, after a sudden batch of new documents. I haven't read it all yet. Uglemat (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ See http://instituteforgenocide.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Results-of-the-research-by-the-commission-and-the-working-group-of-RS-goverment-related-the-event-in-and-araund-Srebrenica-10-19-Julyu-1995..doc, written by Smail Čekić, a member of both groups and member of the commission as "a representative of the community of surviving genocide victims"
  2. ^ https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/84000/eur630032005en.pdf

Duplicate article

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Looks like Bosnian genocide is duplicate article on the same subject. Soarwakes (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This is about the specific event, the other is about the broader phenomenon, there may though be duplication of info. Pincrete (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Srebrenica massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

"Disputed"

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

The article suggests that the Dutch peacekeepers had a duty to protect the Bosniaks, but in fact they were just to monitor the exuction of the treaty of 1993 which was broken by the Bosniaks because of the actions of nasser oric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence 'Dutchbat soldiers in Srebrenica failed to prevent the town's capture by the VRS—and the subsequent massacre"because Dutchbatt soldiers didn't have the task to prevent a capture, it was not in the task. the task was to monitor the disarmament of the Bosniaks, not to prevent capture of the town, that was the task of NATO plains an they failed to bomb the Serbs, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The sentence about how the Dutchbat soldiers "failed to prevent the town's capture by the VRS—and the subsequent massacre" can be interpreted as a statement of fact. Anyways, please cite reliable sources for the information you add. This is especially true when the information is controversial. Your point of view is that it was not in Dutchbat's mandate to protect the enclave, and had no oblication to stop the Serbs. Even if that is true, it is certainly controversial. Please back it up with good sources. Wikipedia does not allow original research. And please spend some more time on your edits to make sure they are of a high quality. You currently break wikitext syntax, make lots of typos, use sources which does not back you up, even though such sources exist, etc. Uglemat (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

First my apologies, hdn't seen this message. I can show original resolution we had to work with in Dutchbatt II, but it's the same as the Un has, it's this one; https://undocs.org/S/RES/819(1993) Point 10 is the piece in which both parties had to ensure the safety of the UN troops, it doesn't say protection of the civillians. As a UN soldier you learn ( we had 3 months UN training) the priciples of peacekeeping. The most important is that you don't take sides. Protecting is taking sides. here's the UN charter for peacekeeping. I also can show the UN handbook we used, but it's in Dutch, you wont understand. This is the official UN webpage and these are the mandates of UN soldiers ( wear a blue helmet) https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mandates-and-legal-basis-peacekeeping UN soldiers may only use force when they have to protect themselves, they are not allowed to engage in combat by themselves, only to protect the mandate. The reason for Srebrenica was Disarmament of the muslim population. The serbs were the victems in that area. The interview between Karremans and Mladic is about the weapons, Karremans shows the list how many weapons they had taken from the muslims. That was the job in Srebrenica. Disarmament of the muslim population to protect themselves as general Morillion has also stated in the Hague in 2004.

This is the original mandate for ROA, but only when fired at; https://undocs.org/S/RES/836(1993) Doesn't talk about protection. I think people don't understand the mandate of UN soldiers, they can;t work as regular soldiers and they don't interfere in matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2000 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no source that talks about protection of the eneclave Srebrenica by UNPROFOR troops, the mandate doesn't talk about protection, the resolution doesn't talk about protection, so why is the Wikipedia article talking about protection? The neutrality of the article is questioned from know, Why is only the english wikipedia talking about protection when the mandate doesn't imply protection?

This is resolution 819 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930416a.htm

10. Further demands that all parties guarantee the safety and full freedom of movement of UNPROFOR and of all other United Nations personnel as well as members of humanitarian organizations;

This is resolution 824 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930506a.htm This is not about protection;

Further declares that in these safe areas the following should be observed:The immediate cessation of armed attacks or any hostile act against these safe areas, and the withdrawal of all Bosnian Serb military or paramilitary units from these towns to a distance wherefrom they cease to constitute a menace to their security and that of their inhabitants to be monitored by United Nations military observers; Full respect by all parties of the rights of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and the international humanitarian agencies to free and unimpeded access to all safe-areas in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and full respect for the safety of the personnel engaged in these operations

This is resolution 836 https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930604a.htm point 5 is not about protection;

Decides to extend to that end the mandate of UNPROFOR in order to enable it, in the safe areas referred to in resolution 824 (1993), to deter attacks against the safe areas, to monitor the cease-fire, to promote the withdrawal of military or paramilitary units other than those of the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to occupy some key points on the ground, in addition to participating in the delivery of humanitarian relief to the population as provided for in resolution 776 (1992) of 14 September 1992,

According to Dutch Minister of Defence at the time, Relus ter Beek, and hissuccessor Joris Voorhoeve, Dutchbat's mission was mainly humanitarian, which explains why the soldiers were not heavily armed. https://www.bradford.ac.uk/social-sciences/peace-conflict-and-development/issue-21/Srebrenica---a-dutch-national-trauma.pdf

In their work Lessons from Srebrenica, Honig and Both attempt to reconstructthe drama in order to conclude what should have been done differently. The authorsmainly criticize the international community for the escalation of events in Srebrenica, speaking sceptically about the 'United' Nations. According to them, the United Nations failed because moral incentives led to the formation of unrealistic goals, and because of the lack of collective will of the international community to use any degree of force.16 They claim that neither the instalment of safe areas nor the prevention of ethnic cleansing were feasible objectives, because the U.N. members lacked the political will to enforce security, and to risk more victims or hostages among their own soldiers than they had already sacrificed. https://www.bradford.ac.uk/social-sciences/peace-conflict-and-development/issue-21/Srebrenica---a-dutch-national-trauma.pdf

This wikipedia article suggest a protection of UN troops without providing an official source. So if they had to task or mandate to protect ( only protect freedom) how can it be a failure

All the tasks are clear in the mandate, Monitoring, provide humanitarian ade, but not providing protection for the civil population, the Resolution was the protection.--Orange2000 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that for most people, if it was in the mandate of UNPROFOR to "deter attacks against the safe areas", the protection of the civilian population in Srebrenica (a "safe area") is clearly implied, notwithstanding the disobedience of Naser Orić. To be honest, it seems like you have developed intricate rationalizations for your own role in the events in Srebrenica (you write that you were a member of Dutchbat). If that is the case, I don't blame you, as it seems Dutchbat was in an impossible situation, and has probably received more blame than deserved. You mentioned the failure of NATO to back you up with air power. I must mention that Wikipedia is pretty strict when it comes to a conflict of interest. Uglemat (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It was ordered not to protect the people, clear orders of Genral Couzy and the high commad of the UN. Any partition would lead to more shootings at UN soldiers, which was happening around bomb alley. I served mostley with th Staff in Busovaca and in Zepa as a monitor. Your implying that we don't understand a mandate, that's also insulting. If there was mandate to protect the civilians it should have been mentioned in the resolution. Without any form of resolution or mandate you have no authrity to react. Your suggestion about my role is just Argumentum ad hominem. The rticle implies a protection without showing any source that supports that allegation of protection. At the time of Dutchbatt III i was in the Netherlands but the mandate was the same for all troops in Bosnia. I have shown the documents so the article is not neutral. It's out of date, because the Ducth court has changed it's ruling already. Wikipedia should be a nutral source supported by real sources, not just assumptions from people. UN personell is not allowed to interven, everyone who served with Un knows. The quistion should be what you conflict of interst is? Can you show me one source in which it is written and from the UN were it is said that UN troops had the task to protect the Bosniaks in Srebrenica, just show me to convince, i have shown the documents which supports that UN troops had no task to protect. Your are implying that the UN took part in attacks against the Serbs, that would mean the UN was not disarming the Bosniaks ( maintask). Never seen such a stubborn person. It's clear you don't understand UN peacekeeping and the resolutions if you still keep repeating. And no your not aware there were 4 Dutch batallions. Not everyone in Bosnia served in Srebrenica, it was a big enclave. At last i will give you agin the most important detail of the resolution, if your going to deny this phrase it's pretty sure there is ina conflict of interest.

10. Further demands that all parties guarantee the safety and full freedom of movement of UNPROFOR and of all other United Nations personnel as well as members of humanitarian organizations;

https://www.nato.int/ifor/un/u930416a.htm

--Orange2000 (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your service. However, there are a few problems with your arguments about this topic. While I will take most of your reply as a personal experience that's not meant to be used as a source, there are still a couple of issues.
  • Your suggestion about my role is just Argumentum ad hominem. If you mean the conflict of interest, it's not ad hominem. It's a valid issue that must be brought up.
  • The rticle implies a protection without showing any source that supports that allegation of protection. The article states that Dutchbat didn't protect the civilians in Srebrenica, since that's what the reliable sources state. Could you point the section that is not covered by a RS?
  • Wikipedia should be a nutral source supported by real sources, not just assumptions from people. Sources that Wikipedia uses are written by people, I think we can agree that it's the way the things work right now. However, WP:SYNTH refers to taking multiple sources, doing your own investigation and coming up with a conclusion. If WP:SYNTH is happening, please point us to the part of the article where an editor has used primary sources to deduct a conclusion that is not supported by WP:RS.
  • UN personell is not allowed to interven, everyone who served with Un knows. That fails WP:V. Ask anyone that knows about this is not a reliable source. If it's such a common knowledge, there must be a secondary source somewhere.
  • Can you show me one source in which it is written and from the UN That's a primary source. It should be avoided if secondary sources are available.
Note that I'm not stating you are necessarily wrong, it's just that we need more secondary sources to support your claims. byteflush Talk 01:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The 1999 Secretary-General report (searchable version here, although with incorrect page numbers) discusses the mandate. According to the report, the mandate of UNPROFOR was "unclear" because the Security Council couldn't agree on whether it should confront the Serbs militarily (paras. 41–45). For example, "It is essential to note that [UNSCR 836] explicitly eschewed the use of the words 'protect' and 'defend', and asked UNPROFOR only 'to occupy some key points on the ground' and linked the use of force to the phrase 'acting in self-defence'. ...some members of the Council nonetheless took a broader view of the resolution." (para. 79). Para. 95 notes, "The Secretariat believed that there was unanimity among the sponsors [of UNSCR 836 (France, Russia, Spain, the U.K., and the U.S.)] that the extension of the UNPROFOR mandate to include a capacity to deter attack against the safe areas should not be construed as signifying deployment in sufficient strength to repel attacks by military force. UNPROFOR’s major deterrent capacity, rather than being a function of military strength, would essentially flow from its presence in the safe areas." Interestingly, the idea of disarming the Bosniaks in Srebrenica seems to have been an UNPROFOR initiative, apparently meant to protect the enclave from the Serbs (para. 59). The Force Commander of UNPROFOR seems to have been particularly opposed to fighting the Serbs, because "one cannot make war and peace at the same time" (para. 51). This suppors what Orange2000 is saying about the lack of mandate, especially as it was passed down to the soldiers, as the Force Commander had a particular point of view which he presumably passed down. At the higher echelons, there seems to have been more ambiguity. There must be secondary sources which discussed this well. Maybe the word "failed" should be changed to something more matter-of-factly, like "did not". Uglemat (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
"Triumph of the Lack of Will" (1997) may be a good choice for further research (haven't read it myself, but I suspect it's a good book). Uglemat (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement Dutch Commander in Chief Lietenant general Hans Couzy on Dutch (televison) NOS news 24-01-1994

"Als de bevolking wordt aangevallen dan is het zelf maximaal dekking zoeken en buiten die strijd blijven"

Aerticle Harvard International Review

"If the population is attacked then it is maximum coverage and remain outside that struggle"

Defenders of the Dutch peacekeeping battalion (Dutchbat) at Srebrenica rightly point out that the soldiers had no chance of defending the town against the larger, better-armed force of Bosnian Serbs.

Resolution 836 designated Srebrenica a "safe area" and empowered UNPROFOR troops only to deter, rather than actually repel, attacks on safe areas. NATO air power could be called in only to "support" the peacekeepers. Protection of Bosnian civilians was no one's responsibility.

...the abandonment of Srebrenica cannot be attributed solely to the actions of member states. By consciously employing a narrow interpretation of their mandate,...

Janvier and Akashi argued that the use of air power would not be the best interpretation of the mandate; afterwards, the all-important mandate was subordinated to the safety of the Dutch troops. In either case, the goal was to avoid the use of force at all costs, no matter how high.

http://hir.harvard.edu/article/?a=854

--Orange2000 (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the document in which Kofi Annan also stated that the UN soldiers take cover in case of an attack and not participate, to make it more clear is impossibkle, the evidence the article is not correct; https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB519-Srebrenica-conference-documents-detail-path-to-genocide-from-1993-to-1995/Documents/DOCUMENT%2004%20-%2019930423.pdf

--Orange2000 (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The very first line - genocide

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The description of the Srebrenica Massacre as a genocide in the very first line is rather non-neutral and inconsistent with the remainder of the article. While the ICTY and ICJ decisions were that the events at Srebrenica did constitute genocide, as noted later in the article such a labeling has been contested by a number of genocide scholars and other public figures.

Given that the ICTY/ICJ rulings and description of the events as genocide by most authorities are noted later within the introductory paragraph, I believe it more prudent for purposes of neutrality and consistency to substitute the word "genocide" for "killings" or "massacre" in the first sentence.

I in no way wish to minimize the events that took place at Srebrenica, as they do, by most reasonable standards, constitute an act of genocide. However, for the sake of encyclopedic integrity, I believe another wording is appropriate for the introductory line as the current one implies a level of consensus akin to, say, the characterization of the Holocaust as genocide - that is not the case.

Scrumptiousmuffin555 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Scrumptiousmuffin555

reverting poorly explained informationectomy...

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

An IP contributor made an informationectomy, with the edit summary "these are not reliable sources, and this is about a living persopn WP:BLP".

I reverted this with the edit summary "As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries..."

Years ago another contributor questioned whether globalresearch.ca was a reliable source. They claimed it was associated with Andy Jones infowars. I determined it wasn't.

If the IP contributor thinks there is a genuine BLP issue with this paragraph, I encourage them to explain this here.

A couple of hours after I reverted a second IP contributor excised, again, this time with zero explanation.

So I am restoring the status quo wording... Geo Swan (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Whole article is propaganda

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments10 people in discussion

Those who commit genocide will always have their apologists and deniers. Fairview360 (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


Frankly, the entirety of this page and section is nothing but propaganda. I served for UNPROFOR in that region and trust me, the number of Serb victims in the area was not "falsified" or exaggerated. According to the RDC, 3,500 Serbs were killed of which 1,000 were civilian victims. The entire article presents massively one side of the story (and I understand why, of course) but nonetheless this is supposed to be educational for people, not a pity parade or a propagandistic attempt to deny ALL ELSE that happened before and after the events in July 1995. This page honestly has almost no academic value to, really, anybody but Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Muslim nationalists. Indeed, the entire page seems to have been written with the blind nationalism of the 1990's revisited, of which the Muslims certainly fell prey to back then. In any event, the entirety of this article is comically one sided. It is as if the Bosnian Ministry of Information wrote the article themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.187.101.222 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you unsigned above. I have moved the Renaming heading and put in another - I hope that's OK. Plenty of evidence that shows the "Srebrenica massacre" was a fraud, but it's quite hard to find discussion by just Googling (wonder why). Here's one article: www.globalresearch.ca/the-srebrenica-massacre-was-a-gigantic-political-fraud/5321388. Bougatsa42 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, you are a FRAUD. To begin with, you never served in UNPROFOR. The number of Serv victims is bogus and falsified because if know Serves, they would have shrines to these so called victims. Point us to these so-called victims. There plethora of evidence supporting the truthiness of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.156.40.48 (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I can confirm - whole article is propaganda and one sided view. Sources are very questionable and unreliable. Article represents Bosniak side of story, exclusively, not objective facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XerJoff (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC) — XerJoff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Bougatsa42, Edward S. Herman is not reliable, at least not on the topic of Srebrenica and Rwanda (he also openly denied the Rwandan genocide). Herman and co. allow themselves extraordinary latitude in dismissing vast quantity of information, cherry picking certain things (which often are true—uncontroversial even, among knowledgeable scholars), thus supposedly exposing Americas conspiracy to dominate the entire world. Uglemat (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Uglemat, You have not explained why Edward S. Herman is not reliable. It's curious that you dismiss out of hand the idea that the powerful want more power, though not relevant to this discussion. Bougatsa42 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps per WP:FRINGE? BytEfLUSh | Talk! 06:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed fringe. Bougatsa42, I don't actually dismiss the idea that the powerful want more power. Having studied America's policy (including coups it has instigated), I am of the opinion that America is culturally inclined to expand, in effect a continuation of manifest destiny, but this tendency is at bottom opportunistic, and American policy makers (just as the American public) are often very ignorant and opinionated, especially about international affairs. In short, the US is not the rational and ominous earth-conquering machine that it is sometimes made out to be. The basic problem with Herman's work is that, having assumed that all media is biased, they then set out to prove that reality is totally opposite. Then, in the case of Rwanda, they devour the tendentious "research" of Davenport & Stam, and totally swallow what the lawyer of some génocidaires is telling them. They ignore that no respectable scholars of the region deny the genocide, and they do not ask themselves why, never questioning themselves. They find some principled scholars such as Filip Reyntjens and—in their own words—"cite them in their areas of strength", that is, whenever they are not talking about the "fictious" genocide. How do they explain that virtually no scholars share their view? In their comical formulation, the scholars have failed to "free themselves from the early deluge of propaganda" (both quotes taken from their Enduring Lies from 2014, p. 8). In fact, it is Herman and Peterson who have failed to "free themselves" from their own hubris. Uglemat (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The "powerful want more power", so we ignore the fact that the Serb forces hugely outnumbered and out-gunned the defenders and 'temporary residents' of 'Srebrenica, ignore masses of historical, documentary and physical evidence, and simply 'leap into the dark', that the whole event was some sort of US/Bosnian 'stitch up'? Obvious explanation really!.
Many details about 'Srebrenica' can legitimately be disputed, but to dispute that large scale killing of unarmed, (mostly) non-combatants took place there is about as fringe as "were the moon landings faked?". Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The article itself appears to be a fair representation of what is known. But the lede is massively slanted to one point of view.
  • Whether the massacre of men and deportation of women and children should have been described as "genocide" is debatable (which is covered in the article); the lede gives only weight to the ICTY point of view.
  • The lede does not mention the revenge aspect of the massacre and it should. The Bosnian-government forces in the enclave were alleged to have committed their own atrocities. Research has found that the extent of these has been exaggerated by VRS propaganda (and this is covered very well in the article). The ICTY made the point that revenge did not justify the massacre.
-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
In my view the debate about whether or not it should be called a genocide is kind of besides the point. If you look at the definition of genocide in international law, it is actually very broad, and lots of other massacres qualify as genocide as well (these massacres happens outside of europe, usually, and most people therefore don't care. The Kibeho massacre is a case in point). Unfortunately, the crucial element in that definition is the intention of the perpetrator, which is always hard to assess, and it hardly makes a difference to the victims (see for example the functionalist/intentionalist debate among scholars of the Nazi holocaust, still not concordant as to what the Nazis were thinking). As concerns the issue that women and children were spared, this doesn't mean it cannot be called a gencide, again because the definition is broad. We might recall that sparing women and children is not without precedent among perpetrators of genocide. When the german Einsatzgruppen began their slaughter (mobile killing operations) in the eastern territories in mid-1941, their original mandate was not very well defined and in fact some units spared women and children at the start of their mission. Thereafter, they became increasingly radical. Uglemat (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Two different international courts (ICJ and ICTY) have considered whether the Srebrenica events fall into the definition of the genocide per the 1948 Convention, and found it to do so. Then, if others think they know better how to interpret international law, they can put forward their own positions and publish them - without any pretense to obtain "equal space" or alike on Wikipedia, since that would be affording them undue relevance. --Dans (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is this page titled massacre and not genocide when other similar pages are titled genocide?

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Massacre more than downplays what happened. The most respected institutions have long recognized this as a genocide including the ICC. Yes there is Serbian/Russian opposition to this label, but much of the world are also opposed to labeling the Armenian genocide as a "genocide". Title should be changed to genocide ASAP. What a disgrace. Mozad655 (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Name disputes, while motivated by strong and genuine emotions, are one of the more fruitless activities here at Wikipedia. Trying to find when "... also known as the Srebrenica genocide" was added (2006) I found an instance where someone was very upset that the word 'massacre' was not capitalised. (see style guideline WP:AT) This article has been renamed before and reversed. Genocide vs. massacre arguments have come up before repeatedly.
Please consider: this article covers one event within a series of sorry events. That it is an instance of genocide does not depend on this article's name. Let the event speak for itself.
Shenme (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


Why avoiding the word "Christian"?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Christians massacred Muslims. Yet, the word "Christian" is hardly mentioned. Instead, the word "orthodox" is used throughout. This is confusing, since both Muslims, Jews, Christians and others can be "orthodox". Is the word "Christian" being avoided because some Christians find this event embarrassing? Joreberg (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of genocide in the first sentence is inappropriate

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The use of genocide in the first sentence is unwarranted from an academic perspective and it represents a level of consensus that is simply not the case. The citations provided for use of the label are court decisions that reflect a plethora of political concerns. The question of 'genocide' in Srebrenica in the comparative context of historical global genocide is an unresolved issue in international relations studies. The article later goes on to note several objections by major genocide historians to the classification of the massacre in Srebrenica as genocide.

I urge the depoliticiziation of the first line of this article, given the adequate description of the genocide debate throughout it. My own academic specialty is in comparative literature, with a focus on Jewish literary depictions of the Holocaust. That genocide and the events at Srebrenica are so fundamentally incomparable that to apply the label of genocide to the latter is, essentially, trite. Nevertheless, my reason for changing this element is to realign with the academic consensus (or lack thereof). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkatz9844 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

First of all, are you going to stop edit-warring? Please give me an answer, because before any further discussion, your edit war needs to stop. Also please educate yourself on how Wikipedia works. You have changed the article and have been reverted. It is now up to you to explain the rationale behind your edits. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Excuses for genocidal mass-murder? Smearing of the Dutch troops?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It seems that a blocked, troll-ish editor (User:TryDeletingMe) has chosen to be an apologist for the genocidal murderers by inserting questionable details which excuse them, e.g. victims were mostly "military aged" men/boys, & the UN is to blame because it should have disarmed the defenders and tackled the army of killers. The edit was made on 26 Sep 2018 by User:TryDeletingMe and remains. In addition, the subsequent sentence that claims that the Dutchbat force "failed" to act and stop the massacre would appear to be profoundly misleading because (if I remember correctly) their 'rules of engagement' specifically & legally forbade them to do anything more than observe (apart from self-defence). Tragically, they complied with military discipline & obeyed their orders. Anyone interested in this? 59.102.49.226 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "military aged" is a preposterous concept. I made some changes to improve the lead. Uglemat (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


The following sentence in the summary is giving undue blame to Dutchbat: "UNPROFOR's 370[13] Dutchbat soldiers in Srebrenica did not prevent the town's capture by the VRS—nor the subsequent massacre." It was not possible for Dutchbat to prevent the capture or massacre because they were forced to surrender to an overwhelmingly superior VRS army that had surrounded Srebrenica. While the capture and massacre took place, Dutchbat was no longer an entity capable of any action. The wording of the sentence, however, implies that they were. "Did not" implies there was a conscious decision not to do it. "Could not" would be a more accurate description of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evertw (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to justify mass scrubbing

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Amanuensis Balkanicus I do not want to enter an edit war with you, and invite you to justify your mass scrubbing, of 20 my edits at one go [1]. The entire reason why I would make only small changes in each edit, is that there is specific reason for that edit, and if you disagree with that edit, you can undo that edit, without disrupting other changes.

This article, overall, is written badly, compared to the other genocide articles such as Rwanda genocide and the Holocaust. Many of its information is not supported by reliable sources, some of them do not have citations at all. The article also uses block quotes liberally without context. Some of these block quotes are used inaccurately, as they originated from ICTY judgments that had nothing to do with Srebrenica, or central Podrinje, at all. Further, the article does not provide a coherent narrative on the events surrounding the genocide, and misrepresent the events by omitting to include key details.

These are just some of the reasons that I tried to fix with my various edits. I can appreciate that you might disagree with some of these edits which you would want to undo. You may even be justified in doing so. But to undo 20 of these edits in one breath, on the basis that "the original prose flowed better", makes little sense to me. First of all, many of these edits are not even about the prose. Second, I highly question if the original prose really flowed better. The original prose used imprecise language, that frequently misleads.

I invite you to tackle each of these edits on its merits, instead of scrubbing all of these edits at one go, and throw the baby with the bathwater. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Srebrenica massacre?

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

@Mozad655, Shenme, and Peacemaker67: Why is this word "massacre" part of the article? I did not find information on whether such a title was decided in some RfC?

  • Certainly massacres, killings, etc. took place in that area before the genocide, probably from all sides in the conflict. But this is an article about genocide and not about massacre. I cannot understand how there can be massacre and genocide in the same sentence, whether it is massacre or genocide? This is in fact a negation of genocide and the article itself. Otherwise there must be background informations in the article(previous fights, killings, rapes, etc) but this informations are originally for an article about the town of Srebrenica in wartime. I guess it might be someone’s argument to put a word or fact "massacre" in the article(due to some events before the genocide)? But this article is about genocide after the fall of Srebrenica when the people are killed. Well, I guess we can't promote some literature that writes about genocide as a massacre, that's the negation of genocide. In article exist legacy section and there it may be written that some sources call this killings as massacre, we won't write that some sources call it genocide. It is a fact established by court. Mikola22 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
It is an alternative name used in a significant number of sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:27, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
There is no alternative name for genocide. Genocide has been confirmed in court decisions. If some sources say that this vas massacre what does that have to do with the genocide and the factual fact? I don't understand that. The massacre can be mentioned throughout the article but by no means in the introductory part, that is my humble opinion. Mikola22 (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Read MOS:ALTNAME. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
A lot of Wikipedians unfortunately have lost their way. This was as far I remember a contentious issue while ago, and was settled to this name. Honestly, it isn't big of a issue, the article itself is solid. Negation of genocide is recurring theme in Serbian media and I believe is quite rooted in the thinking of some the Wikipedians here. You should see the article on Serbian Wikipedia, oh boy. Mhare (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Don't be angry at me but I did not register that this is the title of the article. I talked about the introductory part and till now I was thinking that the article was titled as (Genocide in Srebrenica), it probably stayed in my head from Croatian and Bosnian Wikipedia. Then it's even worse. The article was created in 2004 when the first genocide verdicts arrived and maybe that's the problem. The article was not originally written for genocide but is written as I supposed for the war events in wartime Srebrenica. And then someone probably added later verdicts or sources that mention genocide. Therefore, the only cure is to write a new article about Srebrenica genocide and transfer all information about genocide from this article to a new article. Informations that would remain should be transferred to the article about the town of Srebrenica and his section "Bosnian War". Mikola22 (talk) 09:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
No. That is most definitely NOT what we do. If you think the article on this subject (which is this article) should be named "Srebrenica genocide", then you start a WP:MOVEREQ explaining why it is the WP:COMMONNAME. But before you do that, look at the previous MOVEREQs to see what the arguments for and against will be. They are in the talk page archives. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
We know what Wikipedia is (consensus etc). However, the consensus of some editors cannot change the court's decision and the sources which talk about genocide. The court did not decide that this event is massacre. Why then is the title of this article Srebrenica massacre and why Srebrenica genocide is in this article. Srebrenica genocide must be standalone article because massacre is not genocide, and then nobody can change that to masacre, war crime, etc. The facts(in the introductory part) refute each other. And what's worse, in the lead writes this too "also known as the Srebrenica genocide". It makes no sense. As far as the change of name is concerned the same cannot be done because all of these events(informations) are mixed in this article as well as the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Some reliable sources use the term "Srebrenica massacre", others "Srebrenica genocide". Searches in Google Books and in Google Scholar seem to indicate that most sources call it a "massacre", reserving the "g" term for the "Bosnian genocide". In my opinion that makes sense, since it underlines that what happened in Srebrenica was not a one-off event (even if it was the worst). --T*U (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
We have no court decisions about "Bosnian genocide". "Srebrenica massacre" article written ( 04:31, 13 July 2004‎ ). "Bosnian genocide" article written (6 February 2005..‎ from "Bosnian genocide" article: "The only case officially ruled by the U.N. Hague tribunal as genocide was the Srebrenica massacre of 1995 were 7,912 male died.) Otherwise the context can be seen from this quote, first there was the massacre and then the court made a decision that it was much worse crime, that it was genocide.
The new article "Bosnian genocide" is actually a response of some editor to this article because there was probably no consensus for a reconstruction(name) etc of "Srebrenica massacre" article and because existing "Srebrenica massacre" article it could not be written new "Srebrenica genocide" article. We have only one confirmed genocide, and this is Srebrenica, and the article talks about the massacre which is not a genocide. For me term "genocide" is more terrible than the term "massacre". So this is about the impossibility to write an article with a title "Srebrenica genocide". And why this is so and who supports it I do not know. I just know that a massacre has nothing to do with genocide because otherwise any massacre would be genocide. Mikola22 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The Hague tribunal does not dictate the terminology of Wikipedia. Consensus between editors based on usage in reliable sources does. If you think the article should be titled "Srebrenica genocide", please see WP:RM about how to make a move request. Remember to use arguments based on Wikipedia policy. --T*U (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with others that the only valid reason for renaming would be if genocide were now the commonname for the incident. I haven't seen evidence that it is to date. The legal situation is properly recorded within the article. Pincrete (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Inaccessible link

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reference note 73 leads to a subscription paywall. The article it refers to is available in full at: https://www.scribd.com/document/34162005/Sexual-Violence-Against-Women-in-Srebrenica-Genocide 2.31.162.27 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

legal proceedings section needs updating

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

sources for the people who are on trial are supposedly on trial right now are up to 10 years old. a quick google search found that one of the guys had already been sentenced over 8 years ago. Durraz0 (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments12 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Early close per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


Srebrenica massacre → Srebrenica genocide – The event is internationally recognized as genocide and yet here it's called a massacre. This is disgraceful to the victims that died and a shameful rewriting of history and genocide denial on behalf of Wikipedia. Below I've provided only a couple of legal rulings, statements, and resolutions. There are plenty more on the internet, especially when it comes to national rulings but they obviously aren't in English.

The International Court of Justice ruling alone should be enough for this article to be called "Srebrenica genocide" but I guess the opinions of Wikipedia masterminds matter more than facts, truth and reality. The most common counter-argument I've seen is the "COMMON NAME" nonsense, citing news, media and opinion articles. I don't see how that's a valid argument at all, why should that take precedence over legal, diplomatic, and official rulings, statements, motions, etc.? I could write an article right now saying the sky is red, doesn't make it right. That's nothing more than genocide denial. Julius503 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:UCN and drop the attitude. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence is even attempted, let alone actually offered that the WP:COMMONNAME, ie the name actually most likely to be used by readers wanting to read about the subject is "Srebrenica Genocide". Of course, as we all know perfectly well, some legal, governmental and other authorities use that term and some individuals (notably Karadžić and Mladić) have been found guilty of genocide in relation to Srebrenica. So what? Neither of these facts has any direct bearing WHATSOEVER on the article title (though both obviously deserve full coverage and due prominence within the article). WP is not a legal textbook and we base our titles on guidelines of what is most likely to be useful to the reader, not court 'decree', regardless of how authorative that court may be. Pincrete (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Google Ngrams. Usage ratio of Srebrenica massacre vs. Srebrenica genocide dropped sharply in 2003, but the former is still the dominant term by a factor of about 2.5. Per WP:POVNAME, we may usually use a non-neutral name as the article title if it is the most common name for that topic. Not all genocides are named "X genocide". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Pincrete and WP:COMMONNAME. Eccekevin (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The nom appears to make the mistake that because something is often described as being "X" then it should necessarily be called "X" regardless of the other things it is more commonly known as. The Holocaust was undeniably a genocide of the Jews (and others), but we do not use that name for our article because it is more commonly called "The Holocaust". Srebrenica was undoubtedly an act of genocide, but this is not the common name for it. As an example of how prevalent each name is in academic writing, a GScholar search for "Srebrenica Massacre" returns ~4,420 hits, whilst one for "Srebrenica Genocide" returns ~1,950 hits, meaning that the term "massacre" is more than twice as commonly used. FOARP (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Srebrenica massacre is the English language name for the event, and thus it is appropriate per WP:COMMONNAME. Nobody disputes that the event is a genocide, indeed the article mentions it in the first sentence. I suggest having a gander at WP:RGW. Melmann 15:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pincrete and WP:COMMONNAME. FlalfTalk 17:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support If the courts rule it to be genocide based on evidence, it should be labelled as such. WakandaForever188 (talk) 23:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
In the opening sentence, the alternative (genocide) title is clearly stated. In the lead it is clearly said which courts found which people guilty of the crime of genocide - and when. The problems with "a court knows best" arguments are many, including which courts? If a US court says one thing and a Russian, Chinese, Turkish or British court says something else, which court do we listen to? What about instances that have never gone to any court or legal authority? The Armenian genocide was commonly known by that name long before governments officially recognised it as a genocide, should we not use the term because it DOESN"T have a court judgement supporting it? The names used by the general public - and by academic sources - for all kinds of things - including historical events - are often incomplete or only partially accurate. We record such discrepancies within articles, not 'correct' them by imposing our own view of what the title 'should be'. Pincrete (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Pincrete. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's a wise saying that goes "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". As for the topic, the dictionary definitions of both words involves the killing of a large (but unspecified) number of people. So I don't think any of us should be under an impression that the number of people killed in a massacre is implied to be less than the number of people killed in a genocide. In fact, a quick look at the Article II definition of genocide does not place any threshold number of murders to qualify as a genocide. Theoretically you could have a genocide with one person being killed if they were the sole member of an group. In that sense, this particular legal definition of "genocide" conflicts with the common usage of the word "genocide". A "massacre", on the other hand, requires many killings and is often applies to small handfuls of killings but there's no upper limit there. You could have a massacre of millions. The heart of your proposal, I think, is that the word "genocide" connotes more evil than "massacre". I can understand how that may feel true if focusing on the common usage of the words but by definitions this doesn't seem to follow. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is the very clear WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia does not make up names. Claiming that this denies it was genocide is the worst kind of opinionated soapbox nonsense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

“July of 1995” is erroneously repeated within the same sentence of the opener.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The page is protected due to concerns of vandalism so I was unable to correct this myself. Whoever moderates this page might consider removing the first “July of 1995” and just leaving the one at the end of the sentence. Noetic-waldini (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, done, though I removed the 2nd instance as establishing when is fairly critical.Pincrete (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

What's stopping from updating this article to correctly mention it as Srebrenica Genocide?

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
  • The article right from line undermines genocide by stating it under 'also known as'.
  • There's so many reasons, references and mentions listed in the article which should be enough to rename and use the term genocide instead of massacre.
  • Especially the reasons mentioned under 'Motive' alone should be sufficient to update the article
  • If Wikipedia likes to be a source where people can rely upon unbiased, unopionated, unadultrated and undiluted facts, then this article should be updated

Thank you! Heartssong (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Heartssong, this has been discussed many times, most recently in "Requested move 25 April 2021" further up this page. Article names are decided by WP:COMMONNAME - which, crudely speaking, is the name most likely to be used by a potential reader. We of course prominently record that courts have ruled the massacre to be genocide - but it isn't our purpose to either promote or undermine a particular name, nor to either promote or undermine a particular 'reading' of the event - simply to record what is known about it AFA possible. The killings acquired a name long before the court ruling and all the indicators are that 'massacre' is still more common than 'genocide'. Quite a few such events (most notably the Holocaust) don't have the word 'genocide' in their COMMONNAME.
Speaking personally - and I emphasise this is personal, not policy - I have never understood the argument that killing around 8,000 unarmed men and boys for no better reason than their ethnicity was somehow 'O.K.' (massacre), but killing the same 8,000 unarmed people because your intent was to destroy the viability of their ethnic group in the region was 'really bad' (genocide). Pincrete (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


Thank you and appreciate the response Pincrete.
The article from which I am making citation and reference is, holocaust-and-other-genocides
  • Why I feel we should not take Holocaust as a precedence to name another article
Quote from the above linked article:
"The Holocaust is the name given to one specific case of genocide: the attempt by the Nazis and their collaborators to destroy the Jewish people. Other genocides committed by the Nazis during the Second World War were the genocides of Poles and of Roma."
"the term "genocide" did not exist before the Holocaust, but was coined in 1943-4 by the Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in response to the Nazi crimes"
  • It's not about promoting or using a more widely known term but about using the correct term to not trivialize the event.
While the intent may not be to promote or undermine, the effect of not using the right term is indirectly undermining the facts and findings of the event, not to mention undermining the sufferring of the victims.
  • Further, it can also be seen as Wikipedia influencing the search trend, because when people look up using 'genocide' in google it lists result with 'massacre', so by renaming, Wikipedia might actually influence the search trend - just another perspective
  • Personal opinion, by not addressing it using the correct term, the article appears to takes sides with the Serbian president's refusal to acknowledge it as Genocide.
  • Another personal opinion is that, we should set new precedence to use correct and appropriate terms rather than using existing examples which misrepresent and mislead and create an incorrect perception.
  • The term massacre may have been used prior to all facts and court rulings becoming available but that cannot, and should not, be an excuse to not edit the article and let it misinform its readers. Personally, I believe it's also one of the reasons why there's an edit functionality available, to keep an article up-to-date.
Further reading, refer to page 6 of the post (Although it's in German, sorry)
Thank you for your time and patience! Heartssong (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
As I said, article names are mainly decided by COMMONNAME - that still massively favours 'massacre'. We record, we don't take sides either with regard to the name or what happened. AFAIK, most of the Serbian 'deniers' refuse to acknowledge key elements of the history (how many died on each side, who the killed were, who was giving the orders, who the killers were etc). We give no comfort to such people in our article (opening sentence, immediately after name: "was the July 1995 genocide of more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in and around the town of Srebrenica) and I doubt very much whether such people would consult WP anyway or be influenced by an article title.
But how either of us feels about the title is largely academic, many titles paint an incomplete picture, but we follow not lead public opinion. But personally, I fail to see how 'massacre' is misleading. Massacre = mass murder, usually of undefended and defenceless people. How could that be misleading? Pincrete (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
It's the specificity that's lost and hence misleading. Say if a person is killed, it can be said as 'a person was killed' or 'murdered' or 'assassinated', it's that kind of specific attention that's missing IMO.
In that same regard, Massacre and Genocide are not the same. Massacre is loss of life on a large scale but it's indiscriminate killing, while Genocide is loss of life in large scale which is targeted towards specific group based on different criteria and this specific detail is lost and hence misleading when the title says massacre. Also, personally, the title sets the perception of the article to follow.
Further, like how the talk page says 'be bold, but not reckless', why not be bold, especially in this case? Why follow when you know you can lead, at least in this case, and know that what you are following is not the entire truth but only partial? Heartssong (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The crucial difference with regard to 'genocide' as opposed to other kinds of mass killing is actually "intent to destroy" a race or people. The legal ruling on Srebrenica found that there was intent to make it impossible for the Bosniak population to return or continue to live there or to ever 'recover' in the area. I have no wish to be 'bold'. I've explained why the name has been chosen, you are free to disagree, but unless something has changed very drastically since April 2020, you are very unlikely to affect that change IMO. Pincrete (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Genocide denial on Wikipedia

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Shame on you Wikipedia. Wikipedia is full of Serbian fascist propaganda based on fake Serbian stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB10:5E:6600:18FA:D6A:F0AD:DE57 (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

This is just sad, why is a Genocide labeled as a Massacre and not able to be moved? This site is a fucking joke.

I do agree that this article should be renamed as Srebrenica Genocide. The ICTY Trial and Appeals chamber has uniformly found the events are Srebrenica to constitute genocide. More importantly, the ICJ has made the same finding of genocide at Srebrenica in Bosnia vs Serbia. I can think of no higher and better authority on this issue than the ICJ judgment itself. Perhaps we should do a RFC on this issue? Any takers? HollerithPunchCard (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to merge this and the Bosnian genocide article. “Bosnian genocide” is a much more recognizable and searchable name, and there should be a redirect from “Srebrenica genocide” and “Srebrenica massacre” to the central article. Such separate and confusing articles are not needed, especially since we already have the Ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War, Bosnian genocide case, Trial of Ratko Mladić, Trial of Radovan Karadžić... Also, the ICJ and ICTY verdicts rejected that the genocide was composed of crimes in other municipalities outside Srebrenica.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Strongly oppose such a proposal. Volunteer Marek 19:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
(Inserted post) • Who says that we rely exclusively on the courts of law for writing articles about genocides? We don't. But, for argument sake, let's say that there are no articles about genocides which aren't prosecuted on the court of law - in that case, Bosnian genocide, beside the Srebrenica, is actually confirmed in Trial Chamber denial of acquittal per Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević: Decision on Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, Kosovo, Croatia & Bosnia (see here).--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
When we have trials and verdicts, then we rely on them. When we don’t, we look for other sources and interpretations. Otherwise, the claims of numerous authors that there was no genocide in Srebrenica can be cited. Also, then the debate on genocide during Operation Storm should remain open. However, the verdicts resolve controversial and inconsistent situations. Certainly, the articles are in a very poor condition. Other editors interested in this topic should be interested in improvement. Thanks.--WEBDuB (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The greatest shame of all Wikipedia denials is the Srebrenica massacre article on srwiki. --Mhare (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous discussion going on here. Pet Court order and UN analysis it was a Genocide. You guys are falling for the same propaganda as Turkish Nationalists concerning the Armenian Genocide or Holocaust deniers. One can find more than enough "sources" that will deny the fact that they are a Genocide. And btw. this is mere semantics, some arbitrary term, that still holds certain implications. By denying the international body the privilege to set the naming convention, you are removing all possibility to sensibly make sense of the political fallout and the international consensus. Wikipedia is lost. TechMilk (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Nikolić

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Statement made by the former president of Serbia holds little importance. He is retired and already irrelevant, and he was not relevant to begin with. Please remove it from the lead. Thanks.

I disagree. An acknowledgement of this crime by the head of state of Serbia is important enough for the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add this entry to your list of books on the Srebrenica massacre:

  • Sudetic, Chuck. Blood and Vengeance, [2]. Chuck Sudetic is the sole copyright holder of Blood and Vengeance. Chuck Sudetic has posted this link to a free-of-charge PDF of Blood and Vengeance to counter statements by public officials that the adjudicated act of genocide committed at Srebrenica never occurred.

If you have questions re authenticity, contact Sudetic at (Redacted). 159.146.13.57 (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically no, this appears to be an illegal site and we have no reason to post the link here.Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Please change the name of Srebrenica massacre to Srebrenica Genocide, it was a genocide, you said it yourself, everyone calls it a genocide, international organizations call it a genocide, only genocide denialists call it a massacre just like they call the Armenian genocide a massacre, atrocity or tragedy, instead of genocide. 188.24.213.210 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussions above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
And see the above discussion (and others in the archive). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67 & ScottishFinnishRadish: Maybe we should have an FAQ banner in the talk page? Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
We could, but no one reads them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Rapes committed by the Perpetrators Reference:(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_Bosnian_War) Kchang441919 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

. Kchang441919 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2022

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In Legal proceedings/International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia/Count 3/Municipalities, there are Bosanski Novi and Novi Grad stated. This is misleading as both towns are actually one identical town which changed its name - today's Novi Grad was previously Bosanski Novi. Thus I suggest to add a following commnets in the list: ... Bosanski Novi (today Novi Grad),... ... Novi Grad (formerly Bosanski Novi),... Zawadaz (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The relevant page Novi Grad and its redirects, Bosanski Novi, Novi Grad, Bosanska Krajina confirm that this is the same place - so I've essentially made the requested edit (though ommitted the 'formerly'repeat).Pincrete (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Error regarding serbian cyrillic

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Serbo-Croatian: Masakr u Srebrenici / Масакр у Сребреници" - This makes no sense. Croatian doesn't have cyrillic. The serbian cyrillic should be separate like this "Serbian cyrillic: Масакр у Сребреници" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.199.174 (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Not so. Insofar as Serbo-Croat is standardised and accepted as a name, it may be written in either script. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Srebrenica_massacre/Archive_22&oldid=1219226752"